The blog of the National Peace Corps Association

January 09, 2008

Response to Times Op-Ed "Too Many Innocents Abroad"

The op-ed page of today's New York Times features a piece by former Peace Corps volunteer, recruiter and country director Robert L. Strauss entitled "Too Many Innocents Abroad."

Strauss praises recent initiatives by the Peace Corps to expand its
outreach to volunteers who are 50 and older and but in the process marginalizes the valuable contributions made
by younger volunteers. He also argues that the Peace Corps model is no longer relevant--and indeed is detrimental--to the development aspirations of today's host countries.

As you can imagine, the National Peace Corps Association feels quite differently. It's the NPCA's position that if anything there is an unmet demand for More Peace Corps.

Following is a statement by NPCA President Kevin Quigley:

Robert Strauss's January 9th "Too Many Innocents Abroad" op-ed is misguided in at least two ways: 1) there are not too many Peace Corps volunteers, and 2) they are not innocent.

Resulting from insufficient resources, there is unmet demand for the Peace Corps from more than 20 countries requesting programs and two out of three applicants who wish to serve.

Strauss myopically considers the Peace Corps's impact simply in development terms. However, the Peace Corps is not just a development program. Cross-cultural
exchange constitutes two of its three goals. In addition to enhanced understanding of our country, his analysis misses the life-changing skills and attitudes volunteers bring back home.

Like any program, the Peace Corps could make improvements in training, placement, and more flexible programming, along with better use of technology. These
improvements will enable Peace Corps to better tap into a broader and deeper recruitment pool. However, the answer is not fewer volunteers but More Peace Corps.

31 Comments

Good Will and Nothing Else?: another response to Strauss
I cornered a current volunteer named Amanda* at PC Guinea’s welcome party. Decked out in one of those sundresses that combine African fabrics with American immodesty, she regaled us newbies with fabulous tales of diarrhea, gens d’armes encounters and parties.
“Do you feel like you have an impact?” I asked.
She looked at the floor like she didn’t want to lie, then raised her beer a little and smiled.
“You’ll have a really great time.”
* * *
Robert Strauss, Cameroon’s former Country Director, eloquently criticized the Peace Corps in a New York Times Op/ed on Jan 9th:

“…Too often these young volunteers lack the maturity and professional experience to be effective development workers in the 21st century….In Cameroon, we had many volunteers sent to serve in the agriculture program whose only experience was puttering around in their mom and dad’s backyard during high school.”

As an “Agroforestry Volunteer” who barely even puttered before arriving in country, I felt uneasy about this very issue. How could I give agricultural advice to a community of lifetime farmers? Perhaps they had not yet discovered the virtues of watering? If not, could anything other than arrogance or apathy drive an organization, ostensibly committed to development, to send me there to suggest such a thing? When, one month in, I uprooted twenty healthy teak seedlings--that would look like weeds to any liberal arts major--my uneasiness and Strauss’s point were confirmed.
Yet his point is overstated. The notion that youth and inexperience preclude effectiveness is based on a lamentably untrue assumption: that the world is far more developed than it was in 1961. “Back then, enthusiastic young Americans offered something that many newly independent nations counted in double and even single digits: college graduates.” Unfortunately, in Guinea, where literacy is estimated at 30%, a college degree is a powerful development tool: critical thinking skills and the scientific method alone make you an asset. Plus, we can compensate somewhat for our lack of expertise through our information access—the fact that we can pay for and use Internet. Google knows what a Teak seedling looks like, even if I don’t.
Another argument is simple practicality. Old professionals would trump young Googlers for skills, making for a more effective Peace Corps. But how many well-paid adults want to take bucket showers and pooh in a hole for two years? At least in the countries that need us most, perhaps only rookies will consent to the conditions.
If we must rely mostly on tenderfoots for our development staff, skills must be enhanced in other ways:

1) More Selective Admissions: As Strauss notes, hard skills, not just good will and interest, should be, but aren’t, requirements for acceptance. “The name of the game has been getting volunteers into the field, qualified or not….What the agency should begin doing is recruiting only the best of recent graduates — as the top professional schools do…”

2) More Rigorous Training:the 9-12 week training at the beginning of service should teach highly specific, technical, skills tailored to the country’s stated needs. Methodology should be hands-on and there should be tests and consequences for bad performance, like a real school or job. Currently, vague tech sessions get lost amid a barrage of culture, language, health and security info.

Peace Corps effectiveness requires other organization changes, as well:
3) Performance-related incentives and disincentives—“Men are not angels,” Madison writes in Federalist # 51. Neither are volunteers. In keeping with our beloved capitalist doctrine, we must use rewards and consequences to encourage good work. Currently, lackluster volunteers and overachievers get the same pay, privileges, and (lack of) chances for advancement. Media recognition, invitations to relevant conferences, or some sort of promotion could serve to motivate capable volunteer and pressure slackers.

4) Partnerships with big NGO’s: Peace Corps volunteers are never going to have technical expertise or funding comparable to big NGO’s. We do, however, offer the best grasp of local language and culture, because one of Peace Corps’ unique doctrines is that we live, not just with, but at, the level of those we serve. That makes us ideal local point men for busy, large-scale development projects. Such partnerships would also give tangible jobs to the many bright, motivated volunteers who achieve little for lack of job structure.

5) Impact Evaluation: “The agency has no comprehensive system for self-evaluation, but rather relies heavily on personal anecdote to demonstrate its worth,” Strauss notes. Quantifying impact in development is hard, but any organization serious about achieving its goals must try. “Perhaps…the agency fears that an objective assessment of its impact would reveal that while volunteers generate good will for the United States, they do little or nothing to actually aid development in poor countries.”

* * *
If Strauss were right, and an objective assessment revealed that volunteers generate goodwill and/or broaden their own horizons while achieving no impact, Peace Corps would still be accomplishing two thirds of its goals:

1) Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women
2) Helping promote a better understanding by Americans of other peoples.
3) Helping promote a better understanding by other peoples of Americans.

In other words, Peace Corps plainly acknowledges something that Strauss forgets: that saving the poor is only part of the mission. Besides ineffective development workers, we are a cheap diplomatic corps (transmitting happy US thoughts to the poor Muslim countries that might hate us) and a Democratic campaign rally (exposing the human side of poor would-be immigrants to young Americans). That’s not bad for 300 million dollars—half the cost of the Army’s recruiting office. As Senator Christopher Dod, a former Volunteer writes:

Every American of good will we send abroad is another chance to make America known to a world that often fears and suspects us. And every American who returns from that service is a gift: a citizen who strengthens us with firsthand knowledge of the world.

With taxpayer dollar ever more tightly stretched, these intangible goals may still seem trivial. But watching Amanda sob as she kissed her sobbing host mom goodbye, I personally felt how broad and amorphous the notion of “impact” can be.

I agree with Mr. Strauss. Many of the host countries have outgrown Peace Corps. We need to recognize this and change with them. There is still a need for the Corps' inter-cultural mission; perhaps greater than ever.
We were told thirty years ago that we were 80% social and 20% technical. Apparently this is
unchanged. It was obvious to me for at least the last three of the four years I served that we needed an upgrade. Obviously we still do. I was one of the innocents.

I was so impressed with Robert Strauss' Op-Ed that I posted an item about it on my blog "Campanastan": aquadoc.typepad.com/aquablog/2008/01/peace-corps-inn.html

I won't repeat the entire post here. I essentially said I see nothing wrong with PC having a "cultural exchange" role but that I thought it was certainly time to re-examine thoroughly its mission, role, and assessment of how well it is meeting the needs of the countries in which it works. What's wrong with that?

I am not a PCV or RPCV; I do have some "low-tech" international development experience (water and sanitation systems - I am a hydrologist) through PVOs and my own 501c3. I have run into a number of PCVs and RPCVs while working, mainly in Central America. I have had graduate students who were RPCVs and students who decided to join PC. I have been impressed with most PCVs and RPCVs I've met, and I hope to join PC when I retire (I'm almost 60).

In Honduras, where I do most of my work and which has one of the largest PCV cadres, the RPCVs are particularly loyal. As many of you know, after Hurricane Mitch, many RPCVs descended upon Honduras like "benevolent locusts", often at their own expense, to help out. That spoke volumes to me.

I recall meeting a young PCV in Central America. She had a degree in journalism, and was helping to build a gravity-flow potable water system for a village. She was doing a very good job, and her enthusiasm and confidence had obviously been absorbed by the villagers.

When I was at the University of New Mexico, I had the campus PC volunteer speak to my classes.

But I recall one PC recruiter who once posed a rhetorical question that has stayed with me for almost 10 years:

"When you ask a former PCV about his or her experience, what do they say? Almost always, it'll be 'I had a great time', not 'I felt I made a real difference', or something similar."

I thought about it, and based on my limited experience, I have to confess he was correct.

I just read the January 9, 2008, New York Times Op-Ed “Too Many Innocents Abroad.” I agree with the notion that Peace Corps volunteers should not be sent to do jobs for which they are totally unqualified. But, for the most part, I disagree with Mr. Strauss. The Peace Corps is needed in the world now more than ever. During the time of the current administration in Washington, the reputation of the United States has plummeted throughout the world. Peace Corps volunteers, working at the grassroots level, can build relationships based on understanding and appreciation. This can help us overcome the current climate of fear and hate, and help the world move toward a climate of justice, peace, and love.

It was never true that the ONLY purpose of the Peace Corps was to provide expert, professional knowledge to host countries. A number of years after my time as a Peace Corps volunteer, I visited a community group in Latin America with a half dozen people from a similar community group in the United States. Before the trip, we were told that we must not assume that we have everything to teach them and they have nothing to teach us. To be successful, we must expect to learn at least as much as we teach. In the Peace Corps it was common for volunteers to spend a year learning before having any confidence that we could make a contribution to the community where we worked. After returning to the United States many volunteers were much more certain of what we received from the experience than we were of what we contributed. Robert Strauss seems to discount the impact of Peace Corps volunteers living in community abroad and after they return home. I am thankful that the country director in Ethiopia where I was a Peace Corps volunteer from 1962 to 1964 was Harris Wofford and not Robert L. Strauss.

I would just like to express my frustration and disappointment with Robert Strauss' piece. As a former PCV, I am proud of my successful experience. At the time, I was a recent Philosophy grad and lacked significant work experience. By the end of my two years: I assisted in the renovation of two schools; I managed a project to build a new library with thousands of new books; I designed and helped carry out a project to install a new waterline in a part of the village that lacked running water; I taught English to 200+ students, some of whom went on to study at the University, and, frankly, they would not have without my help. I am still in touch with friends of mine in the village.

There is probably not much that can be done about Robert Strauss' negative perception of young, "innocent" PCVs. But, as a 'Management COnsultant", I am surprised by some of his decisions:

After all, when is it appropriate for a director (or former director) to PUBLICLY criticize those who he should be responsible for leading?

Since when do Consultants criticize others for bringing in a new, outside perspective - even if it is one that is less technically knowledgeable? Look at the recruiting practices of top management consultancies, such as McKinsey: half of their staff are usually composed of PhD's in non-business related subjects. College liberal arts majors seem to be also well favored. A change agent is often an "innocent" person in a new environment.

Also, why write in the NY Times if the goal is merely to stimulate change within the PC agency? He should be more strategic with his communication choices. Not even 0.1% of NY Times readers probably have anything to do with the Peace Corps. It does not seem to be a way to stimulate change within the agency. Instead, it just makes PC in general look ignoble, and young PCVs less employable when they return.

Mr Strauss has made some bad career decisions - well, at least two we know of!

One point that Strauss makes in his article is that the Peace Corps should be evaluated, just like any other institution. I couldn't agree more.

Particular programs may be obsolete or may not serve current needs. However, this is not a generalization, and new positions can and should be created as needs change.

Where Strauss errs is in his categorization that Peace Corps volunteers are somehow "forced" upon host nations. If he "forced" volunteers on the country he served, he obviously was mistaken. Generally, and most logically, volunteers are sent to serve in specific areas where the host government sees a need and requests them.

I'm totally convinced that the Peace Corps would pass any fair evaluation with flying colors. Without a doubt, dollar for dollar, the Peace Corps is more effective than any other foreign aid program offered by the U.S. government.

There has already quite a bit of very good feedback to the Op Ed piece by Robert L Strauss. Rather than sighting all the very good examples of wonderful experience and work that Peace Corps does bring to the world, I will start off by agreeing with Mr. Strauss.

I will agree that there are many Peace Corps volunteers with little or no experience that are fresh out of college with little life experience. Some of those volunteers did wonderful work and some were trying to do things by themselves that they were not qualified to do. I agree completely.

And now I will add that age, college education, experience and funding are not necessarily good measures of the ability to deliver quality, sustainable, and culturally sensitive development.

I will give just one anecdotal example. In Liberia, US AID, a very well funded organization with lots of educated and experienced people, spent 3 million dollars on a drinking water program that drilled wells and constructed very nice, high quality hand pumps on the wells. They installed hundreds of these around the country. The villages that had them, enjoyed them for a while, but couldn't tell me who installed them, where they could get parts, or even where they would find money to buy parts. Three years later, the pumps were broken, unused statues to demonstrate poorly applied technology to solve problems of unsafe drinking water. USAID forget about sustainability. They did not consider where or how these villages would find the resources to maintain these wells.

Thus, one of my initiatives as a new college graduate was to remove these useless pumps and work with local villages to convert the wells to hand drawn bucket wells and spend time to integrate culturally sensitive rules regarding hygiene to ensure the water would be safe, drinkable and produced by a self maintained well system.

So, bottom line, Peace Corps has volunteers that try to do things they are not qualified to do sometimes, and so does every other group of experienced aid organizations. Experience is not the differentiator that enables meaningful development.

However, as a fresh college graduate, I was able to help delivery sustainable fresh water sources, help bring a school to a community that never had a school and help provide transportation access to a region via a bridge project. I didn't know anything about construction, project management or clean water. However, the key differentiator was that I took the time to build relationships. I developed relationships with the community, with construction companies, with professional carpenters etc. Together, this community made a difference. Together, this community remains in contact via the relationships we established 20 years ago. Together, this community helped me and those I lived with learn a tremendous amount about ourselves and each other. Together, this community made a very small, but real difference.

I would just like to express my frustration and disappointment with Robert Strauss' piece. As a former PCV, I am proud of my successful experience. At the time, I was a recent Philosophy grad and lacked significant work experience. By the end of my two years: I assisted in the renovation of two schools; I managed a project to build a new library with thousands of new books; I designed and helped carry out a project to install a new waterline in a part of the village that lacked running water; I taught English to 200+ students, some of whom went on to study at the University, and, frankly, they would not have without my help. I am still in touch with friends of mine in the village.

There is probably not much that can be done about Robert Strauss' negative perception of young, "innocent" PCVs. But, as a 'Management COnsultant", I am surprised by some of his decisions:

After all, when is it appropriate for a director (or former director) to PUBLICLY criticize those who he should be responsible for leading? If anything, a good manager should take responsibility for any shortcomings of those under him.

Since when do Consultants criticize others for bringing in a new, outside perspective - even if it is one that is less technically knowledgeable? Look at the recruiting practices of top management consultancies, such as McKinsey: half of their staff are usually composed of PhD's in non-business related subjects. College liberal arts majors seem to be also well favored. A change agent is often an "innocent" person in a new environment.

Also, why write in the NY Times if the goal is merely to stimulate change within the PC agency? He should be more strategic with his communication choices. Not even 0.1% of NY Times readers probably have anything to do with the Peace Corps. It does not seem to be a way to stimulate change within the agency. Instead, it just makes PC in general look ignoble, and young PCVs less employable when they return.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Niger from 2002-2004. Let's set aside the fact that we had people with master's degrees, in addition to working professionals, veterinarians, ex-military, engineers and so on in our cadre. Let’s set aside the fact that there were several people working on their master's thesis during their service. Let’s set aside the fact that those volunteers with only Bachelor’s degrees were able to get funding for and built wells, literacy programs, sanitation programs, savings and loans programs, AIDS and family planning awareness programs, and micro-credit programs, just to name a few. Let’s set aside the fact that the volunteers were paired up with professional host country nationals to assist them on the expansion of government initiated programs. Let’s set aside the fact that the volunteer corps was trained and directed on site by unbelievably talented and dedicated local Peace Corps staff, who drilled the skills which were needed for success into us in the first three months, and who continued to support us throughout our two years of service. Let's set aside that fact that under the cooperation between Peace Corps Niger and Global 2000 alone, we were able to almost completely eradicate Guinea worm in Niger, taking incidence in Zinder down from a rate of almost 21,000 cases a year in 1995 to less than five cases a year in 2004. Anecdotal? Yes. Hard fact? Also affirmative. This was clearly a positive achievement, and mostly directed by volunteers armed only with undergraduate degrees. Let's set aside the fact that contrary to Mr. Strauss's allegation, Peace Corps takes statistics every quarter - we had to write quarterly reports and submit them to HQ, where they were forwarded on to Washington for compilation.
Let's put all of those positive and very tangible facts aside, and consider the key worth of Peace Corps: In this day and age, cross cultural understanding is crucial to America’s foreign interests. My wife and I were posted in a predominantly Muslim nation in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. We were posted in a country which had always been relatively pro-American, but which was experiencing mounting anti-Americanism owing to an increasing influence of Islamic extremism coming over the border from Nigeria and from international media outlets. Burquas and Osama Bin Laden shirts were popping up everywhere. In the markets, agitators preached anti-American propaganda.
Our friends, however, were our friends. They knew that we were Americans, and that therefore not all Americans were evil. Everywhere that Peace Corps volunteers had interactions with local populations, people could see that contrary to increasing dogma, we weren't killing innocent Muslims, or attempting to destroy their culture. They could see that we were fascinated by their country, eager to learn about its way of life, and to help in any way that we could.
Simultaneously we Peace Corps volunteers were able to, and continue to, share the knowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are not Islamo-Fascist terrorists bent on the destruction of democracy and the death of freedom, as had been alleged in certain outlets of our media, and which was especially prominent at that time.
There is no greater diplomacy than simply being exposed to other cultures and young adults fresh out of college are perfectly capable of doing just that. The article which Mr. Strauss penned highlights his basic failure as a Peace Corps director and his lack of understanding of diplomacy in general.

Based on the cynicism of Strauss' article it appears that his PC volunteer, country director experience was non-contributory.
I was PCV Kenya 1983-1986. During my 3 year PC experience teaching Biology, English and acting as deputy headmistress (asst. principal) at a rural school we developed a lunch program, a library, and significantly increased the percent of students that passed the Kenyan National Exam. Most of my high school students walked over 3 miles to school each way. The headmaster and I worked with the community to build a lunch building. We encouraged parents who couldn't pay cash for school fees to cover their cost with providing food (bags of beans, corn) for the lunch program.
We created weekend study days to prepare students for the National Exam. With book donations from the U.S and Canada we created a library for students and teachers.
By the way, the young woman that I paid school fees for did graduate from college in Kenya and is now employed as a teacher. Her father would not pay for her school fees because she was female.
Our RPCV group continues to have a reunion every 5 years. We have financed/built an educational center in the Kakamega Forest in honor of one our RPCV's who died a couple of years ago. Most of us are professionals now, most of us were fresh out of college as Peace Corps volunteers. We all continue to contribute to our communities (both near and far), families and our professions. Many of the RPCV Kenya group worked internationally providing care for refugees in various countries after PC service.
What, Mr Strauss, did I and my colleagues contribute as fresh out of college, wet behind the ears, idealistic young Americans?
More than you can ever imagine.
And what did we learn, what impact did PC have on each of our lives?
More than you can ever imagine.
The toughest job you'll ever love....more than you can ever imagine.

I’m not sure what Mr Strauss considers to be an “effective development volunteer.” To me, an effective development volunteer is, most importantly, someone who grew up in a developed environment. They understand why roads are important, when you plant seeds you need to water them everyday, not spend more than you make in a business… these are skills Americans grow up with and should not be neglected as a fundamental concept of development work.

To turn Peace Corps into an effective developmental organization, I feel several strategies could dramatically improve productivity:

Opportunities after Peace Corps – If Peace Corps manages to recruit star students and Ph.D’s, what are they supposed to do once their service is up? Peace Corps should have a career extension program. A paid governmental organization that volunteers can apply to, for example. Working for a graduates program working to develop bigger scaled projects to be implemented with current volunteers might work…

Organization, relevant training programs – I understand Washington is developing wiki’s for every post to use to share information, project ideas. An effective website offering examples of concise information and past examples would help volunteers figure out what to do.

Publicity – This one would be tough, but make volunteers famous for their success. Make development sexy. I’d put my faith in YouTube and bloggers to figure this on out.

Reality TV – With scripted TV becoming dated, it seems like the next step to Reality TV, would be actual reality TV. Mix this with microfunded entrepreneurs advertising their idea, you got yourself a new channel.

Be creative to open up development by connecting with other grassroots organizations like Kiva.org.

Development work is not easy. Sometimes you’re “customers” don’t understand, or even want, what it is your selling. While star students and Ph.D’s may be nice, I believe people will work if you show them what you want them to do, get creative and hang a carrot in front of their mouth.

-College students and recent graduates in host countries are the first ones to stop PCVs on the street and ask for English lessons. They recognize the advantage of receiving lessons from a native speaker.
-We worked with certified veterinary technicians who desperately needed real training. Often the training programs in under developed countries are inadequate.
-I found our biggest role in the Peace Corps was in connecting people to the resources that already exist in the country.
-Sometimes having a PCV in a village is enough to get government officials to support a long overdue project.
-About 50% of the volunteers in our veterinary project were retirees. I did not find age to be a determining factor in who was successful in the project.

I served in Mali from 1996-1998. My title was Water and Sanitation Extension Agent. When I left for Peace Corps, I had a BA in French, 5 years of teaching experience as a GED instructor in a welfare to work program, and had just obtained my Masters in Social Work, with a concentration in Community Practice.

I will never forget the day I was sent to my village, after three months of learning about latrines, pumps and wells. When I met with my homologue, the Director of Hygiene and Sanitation, and he looked at my resume, I never saw a man so entirely disappointed. He looked at me and said, "We asked Peace Corps for an engineer, or not to send anyone at all." And yet, here I was. This experience has stayed with me to this day. I can remember questioning the Peace Corps program and how it works. He went on at great length about the uselessness of the Peace Corps program. "They come for two years. It takes one to learn the language and culture, and then just when you're ready to really get to work, it's time for them to go home." The volunteer before me, who also was not an engineer, had left early. He was disheartened by the whole experience.

But Peace Corps has a way of working out, and the English teacher never showed up at the Second Cycle. That first day, he asked me if with my teaching experience would I be willing to work at the school instead, because they are in need of an English teacher. And this changed my life in the village. Everyone immediately knew me: teachers, parents and children. My role was well-defined and I was working full-time. It was a perfect way to get me into the community in a very quick, and opened up opportunities to me such as: Women's literacy and numeracy programs, Adult English classes, Rural Librarian trainings, and my favorite of course, through the World Wise Program, creating a better understanding of the African American experience in the States.

I still met with my homologue on a regular basis. We discussed at great length philosophical questions about development, the future of Africa, of Mali, and whenever there was hygiene work, such as constructing latrines or soak pits, or installing his own ameliorated jug design, I was there.

At the end of my service, I humbly went to see my homologue, knowing our beginnings and said, "I don't know if you would like another Peace Corps Volunteer, but here are the forms, in case you do. I can bring them to Bamako when I go."

When I came back to meet with him, he had actually requested not one, not two, but three new volunteers. One for my village, and he was interested in opening up two more sites. That was one of my proudest moments in Peace Corps.

Yes, there will always be room for improvement. But, what makes the Peace Corps so special for me is the individual nature of each person's experience, the uniqueness of it. And how lives are touched in such a personal and beautiful way. That's what Peace Corps got right, and what I still try to keep alive in my current life in the US.

Its exactly this type of arrogance that distances many country directors from the volunteers they are charged with supporting. When I was a volunteer our CD used to refer to the volunteers as "kids". Despite our youth and the fact that we might have been a bit green behind the ears, the fact remains that most volunteers have a college degree and some level of work experience under their belts and can hardly be considered children in any context. In fact, I found my peers to be highly motivated, clever, inventive and persevering in their endeavors to assist where they could. Yes, this often meant learning a great deal from their local counterparts, but I doubt any volunteer would describe their experience as "a bunch of hooey", as Mr. Strauss so inaptly puts it.

Mr. Strauss' description of a life as a volunteer consisting of "puttering around" and "enjoying oneself" shows his distanced understanding and even the contempt he has for those he should be encouraging and building up. I remember my CD living in one of the posher neighborhoods of our host country's capital and constantly mis-pronouncing major local landmarks, city names and cultural groups while most of us really lived the day-to-day of local life at the grassroots level and left with a deep understanding of the country we had spent two years of our life in.

While I definitely can't speak for anyone else's experience, I found my main source of frustration to be the lack of resources and support I was provided with from those that were sent to assist me; my youth was never a problem, though I will admit that when it came to enjoying my experience, I guess I was guilty as charged.

I am a mid-career professional currently serving in Peace Corps – Morocco. I have found the experience to be very rewarding – the skills and expertise I can offer fits well with the needs of my community. That said, the hours spent drinking tea and just hanging out might be more important than the ones I spend helping artisans with small business development. JFK set three goals for the Peace Corps – one is meeting the need for trained men and women, two is to promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of other peoples, and three is to promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans. All three are part of the job, and all can be accomplished by a college graduate as well as by more seasoned people.

In my observation, success in the Peace Corps is based on three factors. One is the personality of the volunteer. You have to spend time in your community learning their needs in order to help people help themselves, be flexible, be creative, be open-minded. The second is the community – there have to be motivated individuals and organizations that can see the value of what you have to offer, welcome you, and continue to use what you bring to them. The third is the Peace Corps staff – with training, programming and support, they provide continuity and reinforce sustainability.

There are fellow volunteers here who are just out of college who are making a contribution and some with work experience who are a little lost. But Peace Corps seems to get it right more often than not, and I am proud to be here.

"Although there are many different opinions about what Peace Corps does well and where it has room for improvement, from the hundreds of emails and blog entries that resulted from my Op-Ed in the "New York Times" one thing is clear; a lot of people feel very passionately about their experience as volunteers and staff and about the agency itself.

It's my hope that the conversation that resulted from my Op-Ed will continue and lead to a Peace Corps that is more effective, more responsible in its use of public funds, and more responsive to the needs of the poor.

As regards Mr. Gaston's post on this site, allow me to cite the following chronology.

My Op-Ed ran in the New York Times on January 9, 2008.

On January 11, I received the following email from Peace Corps headquarters.

"Hi Robert,

Tyrone Gaston just phoned and asked that you contact him. He’d like to use you as a reference, but first wanted to make sure it was ok. He doesn’t have your contact info. So he asked that I send his inquiry on. Thanks,

In the Sunday New York Times (January 13, 2008) there were about 8 letters to the editor also responding to Strauss. Two were in agreement and the others expressed contrary views.

This is my view.... Neil Ross (RPCV Dominican Republic 1962-64)

.....................................................................

President John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps in 1961 with three simple mission goals to promote world peace and friendship:

1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women.

2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served.

3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans.

Robert Strauss makes some good points in his Op-Ed article "Too Many Innocents Abroad" (NY Times, January 9, 2008). He focused on the first Peace Corps goal often referred to as technology transfer.

I agree with his basic thesis that low technical skills has always been a weakness in Peace Corps recruiting. I was one such volunteer who, right after graduating in 1962 with a BS degree, spent two years in the Dominican Republic as a Volunteer. Were I to return into the Peace Corps now with 40+ years of professional experience I probably would be more effective. But Strauss did not mention that mostly recent graduates join because they want to do something different and useful before settling into careers and families. The Peace Corps still offers unique opportunities to live in another culture, learn a new language, while trying to be helpful.

People with valuable technical skills quickly get good paying jobs on graduating and probably are neither interested in volunteering without pay for two years nor want to live in another country at near poverty levels.

Strauss is also correct that many more people in countries where Peace Corps has programs now have higher education and acquired much more technology over the past forty-five years. As times change so do the needs and opportunities for Volunteers. For example, near the town where I lived forty-five years ago is a small mountain village that just received electricity last year for the first time. I have visited the three Peace Corps Volunteers there (each fresh from American universities) who are helping the small high school set up a computer lab. By the end of this month, they will begin teaching how to use computers and the Internet thus giving that isolated community a new information gateway to the world. I could not do that in 1963.

The second Peace Corps goal, "helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served," was omitted by Strauss.

After an absence of thirty years, I returned to my Dominican mountain village for the first time. Peace Corps Volunteers were still helping there with new projects in rural sanitation, water supply development, and health care. They live outside the town that had grown five times bigger than I remembered. During that first return visit, I was delighted to reconnect with a dozen Dominicans I knew three decades ago. I was happy to see that they had each moved up to middle class and many had university degrees. Each of their children was in or entering university. One friend, now a graduate dentist with his own clinic, told me that he modeled his life after mine. Despite his father’s urging to quit school and get a laborers job, my friend refused and told his father that since this American had a high school degree, he would get one. On graduating, his father again ordered him to get a job and was refused. My friend wanted a university degree, just as I had one, and he earned it.

At the moment hearing my friend's story, I finally understood how powerful the second Peace Corps goal is and that it is a long-term mission. In my case it took thirty years to understand what powerful role models young Volunteers are. As Americans, we bring a double spirit of hope and a can-do mind set that is not present in much of the world. Living in villages and small towns, we are seen as friends, teachers, and role models. We also show that Americans care enough to learn their language and eat their food. Quickly, our neighbors learn that not all Americans are what they've see on television and movies.

Again, Strauss overlooked the third Peace Corps goal of the impact that service will have on the Volunteers, our home communities, friends, and families here in the States.

By sending thousands of Americans (yes, mostly young ones) into foreign nations, Peace Corps Volunteers learn much more than we can teach. For most of us that experience is life changing. We become internationalists in our careers, families, and volunteer services. Wherever I go overseas and meet Americans working abroad, a significant percentage were Peace Corps Volunteers. Because of my Peace Corps experience, I married another former Volunteer and 25 years later out daughter served as a Volunteer in Africa. My career choices often included some international element and I have professionally been involved in over 27 countries. My volunteering includes other nationalities and some overseas programming. For the past ten years I annually return to the Dominican Republic organizing an international Scout exchange program that has brought eighteen Dominican leaders to serve summer Scout camp staff in Rhode Island. Next month I will be leading my fourth group of eight high school age American Scouts for a fourteen-day Dominican visit.

From what I’ve observed the greatest impact of the Peace Corps is on how we change and how we influence American people, government, and programs. Moreover, we do it for most of our adult productive life.

I agree that we sent too many innocents abroad, but they return less innocent and more involved in our society than any other group I know. Americans are made of peoples of every nation in the world and the Peace Corps gives us unique, life-changing opportunities to learn about our world.

In reading Robert Strauss’ article “Too Many Innocents Abroad” I am taken aback by the lack of understanding a former Country Director, Peace Corps Volunteer and Recruiter has of Peace Corps’ mission. Mr. Strauss, are you familiar with the three goals of the Peace Corps? Allow me to refresh your memory:
1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women (provide technical assistance to the people of the host country).
2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served (helping people of host country to learn about the American culture).
3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans (learn the culture of the host country).
These goals have not change nor have they been compromised since the inception of Peace Corps and after thousands of Volunteers have successfully served. The Volunteers accomplish the latter two goals by simply integrating into the societies in which they serve. To imply that Volunteers, particularly young ones, bring little or nothing to actually aid development in poor countries misses the pictures completely. Does Mr. Strauss have any idea what Volunteers do and the number of lives they touch on a daily bases?

Mr. Strauss should also be reminded that the 1960’s were not the glory day but a time in the life of Peace Corps filled with growing pains, suspicions, identity concerns, and for many Volunteers a lack of focus or clear directions. Simply having a college degree did not then nor does its now pave the road to Volunteer effectiveness. However, over the last 40 plus years the Peace Corps has developed into a world recognized organization with a professional staff that is more than capable of recruiting and filling many of the human resource needs of developing countries. If this did not happen under Mr. Strauss’ watch in Cameroon the consequence of his inabilities fall squarely on his shoulders. Is it not the responsibility of the Country Director to determine the needs of the host country and communicate those needs to Peace Corps headquarters (Country Desk Officers, Regional Directors and recruitment) through the Volunteer Assignment Description (VADs)? Is it not the responsibility of the Country Director to gauge the effectiveness of each program and determine if Volunteers are truly needed through dialogue with Peace Crops staff, Volunteers and host country counterparts?

Is it not the responsibility of the Country Director to insure that Volunteers are properly recruited and trained to serve in a secure environment? This starts with the recruitment process which is initiated by the Country Director and followed by pre-service and in-service training. Once again, if this did not happen under Mr. Strauss’ watch, the person responsible for the outcome or the organization, then who should bear the responsibility?
Is it not the responsibility of the Country Director to articulate the needs of the host country through relationship building with government official and its citizens? If Mr. Strauss wants to cite lack of client/customer relationship, it nonetheless fell upon his shoulders while serving as Country Director in Cameroon. Did he accomplish this task?

“Too Many Innocents Abroad” is an insult to the thousands of Volunteers, young and old, who serve not only the US but also their host countries and its people in need of their energy, passion, commitment and skills. Anyone that has lived or worked in different cultures understands that one’s experiences at home – professional or personal does not necessarily translate into success abroad.

Mr. Strauss’ attempt to smear the Peace Corps is highly disingenuous and self incriminating. The Country Director is responsible for setting the tone of each country’s program. This include: identifying capable Volunteers, setting the standards of excellence, monitoring their performance, establishing a healthy relationship with the host country government and citizens, articulating the needs of the host country, managing host country staff and most importantly supporting the Volunteers in their professional as well as personal lives while serving. Did this occur under Mr. Strauss’ time as Country Director in Cameroon?

Lastly, having served as a Peace Corps Volunteer and an Associate Peace Corps Director in Cameroon, I can assure all that the Peace Corps is as dynamic today as it was in 1961. Mr. Strauss’ statement that the Peace Corps can never be questioned or improved is ludicrous.

To all those who have served and continue to serve, let’s continue to cherish our experience as a member of the Peace Corps family and disregard “Too Many Innocents Abroad” as a failed performance by a former Country Director, Recruiter and Returned Peace Corps Volunteer.

Written by Tyrone Gaston, Returned PCV Cameroon 1982 – 1984, APCD Cameroon 1999 to 2004, with over 25 years of development experience as Country Representative in Chad, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ghana , Nigeria and Liberia.

Every day over 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers go about their daily routine under conditions most of us can hardly imagine while we sit in climate-controlled offices sipping cappuccinos. These volunteers communicate in languages we have never heard of with people who cannot imagine the world they come from, where the electricity is always there, the water is always on, the internet connects everyone, and things just generally work. They do back-breaking work in isolated farm fields, they teach classrooms of 60-120 school children, they delicately educate on taboo subjects such as HIV and unheard of ones like biodiversity, they manage micro-loan programs; and they also haul and boil drinking water, wash their clothes by hand, and relieve themselves in latrines. It is not an easy life, but they persevere, away from home and family, for 2 years. It is a work that the entire American people, the US government, and above all the Peace Corps administration should applaud, not insult.

Robert Strauss’ article on Jan 9 illustrates one of the US Peace Corps’ greatest weaknesses and that is the level of support volunteers receive from the government they are so valiantly serving. Dropped off at isolated posts throughout the country, the volunteers are told to limit their contact with each other and given little in the way of psychological support. Now the reason is clear: how can Mr. Strauss support volunteers if he does not respect them?

Mr. Strauss also betrays how little he understood about the country for which he served as Peace Corps director. I and my colleagues volunteered in every province of Cameroon and yet we never met the out-of-work English teachers Mr. Strauss writes of. In fact, we met some teachers with nothing more than a high school diploma. Yes, many of us had general educations, but we brought a new perspective with us to Cameroon. We used participatory education techniques that Cameroonian teachers wouldn’t dare to employ. We hosted after-school clubs and developed leadership skills. We promoted new ways of thinking.

And that is what Mr. Strauss forgets. The US Peace Corps is not just a development organization. If the Peace Corps were simply about passing on technical skills, we could leave that work to USAID and its contractors. But, the Peace Corps has three goals, two of which center around cultural exchange and understanding. We accomplished and continue to accomplish those two goals every day.

Yet, Mr. Strauss makes some valid points. The world is different today than it was in the 1960s and the US Peace Corps needs to adjust. The Peace Corps needs to listen to the countries it works in about what their needs are. It needs to do a better job of evaluating its impact. It needs to reconsider its goals and how it can best accomplish them. And, yes, it should be more selective in accepting volunteers; but the criteria should not simply be technical skills (which developing countries are accruing more of everyday), but also the softer skills of influencing mentalities and behaviors. First, however, it needs to respect and empower the volunteers it already has. These volunteers contribute 2 years of their lives; they deserve to be supported, regardless of age or technical capacity.

In development circles, the Peace Corps is widely regarded as a “development college.” Many of us continue to serve our country and the international community long after we have completed our 2-year service. The development world has changed; as developing countries accrue technical skills, there is little role for Westerners to do direct, on-the-ground work. The Peace Corps is now a unique opportunity to gain that experience and perhaps the only appropriate vehicle to do so—it is easier for an open-minded 25-year-old to contribute than for a 35-year-old with a graduate degree who intends only a one-way flow of information. We would argue that the Peace Corps is valuable even if its only result is a US-citizen who returns more open-minded and world-wise. But many of us continue to have more direct impacts: we work in international development, international affairs, community-development, education, etc. In fact, I would like to dedicate this article to my Peace Corps Cameroon colleague who recently gave his life serving USAID in Sudan. John Granville made many important contributions to the world, both through his Peace Corps service and after, and he touched each of us deeply. So please, Mr. Strauss, start from an attitude of respect. It is the only way to update Peace Corps’ thinking so that it can have an impact that reflects the contribution its volunteers are making.

Hi all,
As a former volunteer, trainer, programmer and recruiter, I am sympathetic to the organization and think we all see a lot of benefits to volunteers, their host countries and the U.S. I don't think Bob Strauss means to belittle those, but rather to point out that we need to do more thinking about volunteers' roles. I have been working in educational development since volunteering in the early 1980s, where I was able to gain so many attitudes, skills and experiences that are essential to my current work, as well as having a warm relationship with a certain Sierra Leonean elder "pa" and his family! Unfortunately I have seen a lot of what Bob is talking about. Sending underqualified volunteers can be insulting to host countries, especially since the capacity of their own citizens is rising at incredible speed. Of course the other aspects of volunteerism are valuable, and the other Peace Corps goals, but Peace Corps may inadvertently be exporting the very America-centric attitudes we hope to diminish: Note the comments about teaching English, in countries where most people don't even have access to basic education or literacy in their own languages, languages that they understand.

I would like to suggest that instead of defending the organization unconditionally, we should take a more constructive look at what skill levels can realistically be recruited, and be honest with host countries and with ourselves.

There is always room for improvement. But first one needs to identify the goals (all the goals). Clearly the good will of the host country, teachers and pig farmers etc is one. Without this basic component, the PC volunteer experience becomes far less than what it could be.

As we approach the 50th Anniversary of the PC, I think a lot of things need to be reevaluated, in light of current world affairs, and attitudes within the USA.

Having been a member of the very first "Technical Project" that the PC fielded in early 1963 (and which the PC really disliked) I probably lean toward First Goal. Or certainly see that as the foundation for Second and Third Goal efforts.

Some months ago I forwarded to our New Mexico membership a column by freelance writer Laura Vanderkam, which appeared in USA Today, in 2005. Laura's perspective, like Mr Strauss's also emphasized First Goal, and tended to see a lot of value in economic and social development -- and saw in this post Cold War world diminishing value in "winning the hearts and minds" of the world's peoples.

As a technical person, this struck me as rather pragmatic. To me, the scientist, and at the same time an empathetic human being, world understanding is self-justifying. We should not be asking in advance what we expect to get from it. You do it without thought of benefit or gain simply because you're a human being, and you can empathize.

In this regard the PC always has been head and shoulders above pragmatic outfits like the US State Department and USAID, as an expression of the American people. It was these same PCVs, innocent or otherwise, who made it so. Something the State Department's carefully screened employees will never do.

Laura's column was before we learned the full extent of Fundamentalist Islam's contempt for us, not only for the US Gov't (and it's current schemes), but for the American people themselves.

Indeed, it is as plain to me as to many commentators, that the attitude of the vast majority of non-extreme, moderate Muslim populations is key to whether extremists will have a sympathetic base to operate from. Addressing again whether "to win the hearts and minds of people" is not as important, or MORE important, than it was before.

I'm reminded of the tribal headman from N Waziristan, in Pakistan, who, after a team of 14 American paramedics at their own expense, travelled there after the earthquake to assist the injured, a Pakistani journalist asked the headman, what was his opinion of Americans. Even as the paramedics were caring for his people, and Al Queda extremists were at the same moment killing people and preaching hatred, the headman replied: "That is a very difficult question. I had never met an American before." Clearly, the headman was, as headmen everywhere must do, considering all facts, as his people expected of him.

As I pondered this, it seemed pretty clear to me that it was the First Goal, saving his peoples' lives, that the headman could not ignore. This was substance. It was more than simply talking and shaking hands. It was, for sure, inextricably tied up with Second Goal. But the obvious, tangible value of the First Goal component elevated everything beyond simply talk. It is in the doing, that we will be judged. Absent "doing", it is only talk. If it sounds like St Francis of Assisi, probably it's because that's pretty much what the holy man said.

This wisdom predates both Christianity and Islam by millenia. It is the foundation of all human reasoning, dating as best we can discern, to someone even Confucius bowed to, to the greatest of all: Lao Tsu.

The PC couldn't do much better than to align itself with St Francis, Confucius, and Lao Tsu. Something the present PC management seems to have a lot of problem with, unable to see the forest, because of all the trees. In this regard, I have to differ to some extent, with BOTH author Strauss and current PC management. I wonder, too, why should a linear-reasoning scientist feel compelled to explain non-linear reasoning.

Best regards to all, John Turnbull New Mexico Peace Corps Assoc Santa Fe